-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, 17 October 1998 4:08 AM
Subject: RE: opposing from the left (my 2 cents)
>[TE]
>Hello. I'm not sure if I am a member of Neither - though I am a
>supporter and have argued for Neither voting at all the schools I have
>spoken at as a Greens candidate in the last election.
>Perhaps in some minds being a Greens candidate forbids me being a member
>
>of Neither? I have stated and continue to state that I am an activist
>first before I am a party member, I readily admit that the Greens are
>dangerously too close to the middle class and even small l liberal upper
>
>class, and I am totally supportive of increased immigration. My
>association with the Greens is extremely recent so I don't apologise for
>
>it's past policies. Nor have I ever hid that I don't believe the ballot
>box is our route to freedom. It is only one more tactic among many.
>Having lived in Tent Cities and occupations I am happy to try every
>thing I can.
>My own background is in student unionism and queer politics but as a
>long term unemployed I currently feel my strongest solidarity with other
>
>unemployed people. You may be pleased to know there are the seeds
>planted for a political consciousness for unemployed people in this
>country and I don't mean an organisation/faction/party. I'm talking
>about the emerging of a class consciousness.
>Whether I am considered a member or not, as at least a fellow traveller
>I fervently hope that Neither comes from the Left in opposing two-party
>big-business "democracy". My personal mantra is that people should have
>more control over their lives, including their environment and their
>expression. I consider this to be fundamentally Left as the poor
>outnumber the rich both locally and globally. If power is shared equally
>
>then the consequences will be more for the poor not less. I hope others
>in Neither can agree.
>Ciao.
>tony camilleri
>
>"http://angelfire.com/sd/eatrich/index.html"
>
>[AL]
>Seems to me that people with an outlook broadly similar to yours
>are likely to form the backbone of Neither, with all sorts of variations
>and differences on concrete issues.
>
>Personally, I reject the Green party for reasons we can debate
>later. But I'd be delighted to work together with Greens and anyone
>else that want to fight against the two party state.
>
>No doubt you (and most other Neither supporters) would reject my own
>political views (revolutionary communist), but I'm pretty sure we'll get
>along fine on what we do have in common.
>
>Several Green candidates put out How To Vote cards with the ALP and the
>Coalition equal last in 1996. I guess that will be unlikely from now on
>while the Greens as a party continue their submissive attitude to being
>excluded from representation. But I can't see any reason why that should
>be an obstacle to Green candidates who do WANT to put them equal last
>being members of Neither.
>
>The problem with membership has not been any desire to exclude Greens
>from membership but a complete inability to include ANYBODY.
>
>That HAS to end if we are to become an organization capable of "opposing
>from the left" rather than just another narrow factional
>clique as is so common in "left" politics.
>
>My view is that it will be a long time before there can be a united
>party of the left in Australia, but Neither could play an important role
>in paving the way for that by proving that progressives of DIFFERENT
>political views can work together to end the two party state.
>
>That means encouraging people who are members of various other political
>organizations and parties, some of which will claim to be "the answer",
>to agree on accepting our differences (not by burying them but by
>debating them), and work together on what we agree on.
>
>That will be difficult and has not been achieved up to now.
>
>There has been a long history of abject failure of allegedly "left"
>organizations to build anything but narrow factions (often described as
>"broad coalitions").
>
>That is a strong argument for not identifying ourselves as "opposing
>from the left" and instead being open to ANYONE who opposes the "two
>party state". At least the presence of right wingers with that view
>would make it more difficult for the leftists to make the usual
>factional presumptions.
>
>But in the long run I think One Nation or (whatever replaces it if it's
>present leadership implodes), will lead the opposition to the two party
>state from the right, and Neither from the left - if we do succeed in
>avoiding attempts to turn us into another "left" faction competing with
>others.
This may just be the organisation that does the replacing of ON if it
implodes:
http://www.davsym.com.au/
>
>My view is that the membership criteria should simply be rejecting both
>the ALP and the Coalition by voting against them both until they agree
>to PR. Within that we should have open public debates about policies,
>and in the course of those debates adopt policies, such as support for
>increased immigration, that would naturally incline people broadly on
>the left to continue working with us and incline those on the right to
>look elsewhere. But without requiring support for any particular policy
>on anything as a criteria of membership so that winning and losing
>debates votes on policy is seen as a model for a future representative
>legislature rather than a means to establish another faction.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
>For help with this mailing list, look at
>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>
